Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia–Philippines relations (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Armenia–Philippines relations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

last AfD resulted in a redirect but someone has tried to recreate the article. In its current state, it demonstrates that the relationship is not significant. No resident ambassadors. no agreements, hardly any trade, just USD 2 million in 2014 and only one ministerial visit in 20 years of relations LibStar (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  16:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  16:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  16:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 *  Delete Keep  These relations are no more significant now than they were two years ago. Fails GNG. J bh  Talk  16:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Change !vote due to historic relations.  J bh  Talk  19:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * keep Relations exist, and in is encyclopedic to know their extent however small it is. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * relations simply existing is not sufficient to establish notability. Bilateral relations are not inherently notable . LibStar (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hardly a response. Your opinion does not reflect long established consensus. Having relations is not the same as notable relations for a WP article. LibStar (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete relations between the two countries are minor. There were only routine visits by ambassadors. No significant lasting effect resulting from interaction between the two countries beyond the usual diplomatic puffery. See comment at third relisting Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes they are minor. And wp article shows that. If the page were absent, how does a reader know whether they are minor or wikipedia simply did not bother to write it up? International relations are always subject of interest. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes relations exists but there is nothing to write about except perhaps nth anniversaries of the establishment of Armenia-Philippine relations. Armenia isn't that much of a destination for Overseas Filipino workers or expatriates or the Philippines a destination of Armenian expatriates. No treaties or agreements beyond "expanding bilateral ties".Also Foreign relations of the Philippines already lists Armenia as one of the countries that has officially established relations with the Philippines. Placed applicable references from Armenia–Philippines relations to Foreign relations of the Philippines.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure you understood my comment. Let me highlight the important piece. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep- Minor? Hell no!--Jondel (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * you've given zero arguments for establishing notability. Annual trade is just  USD 2 million.  There are small companies that easily trade more than that in a week. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. Here are two sources in the article:  The article notes: "MANILA, Philippines – Foreign Secretary Albert Del Rosario and Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian on Wednesday signed two bilateral agreements which were meant to expand bilateral relations between the two countries. The agreement between the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) of Armenia established a mechanism on political consultation meant to monitor Philippine-Armenia relations, the DFA said in a statement. ... Nalbandian’s visit to the DFA Wednesday morning was the first visit to the Philippines by a high ranking official from Armenia. The statement noted that Del Rosario, during his meeting with Nalbandian, said the official’s visit marked this year’s 20th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. It said Del Rosario welcomed the European country’s interest to engage in the Asia Pacific region. In a separate interview with reporters, Del Rosario noted that the meeting was good for the countries since “nothing has moved between us for about 20 years.” He said that for 20 years, trade between the Philippines and Armenia was “miniscule” and that there were no investments."  The article notes: "Armenia may be far from the Philippines, but there's a lot of ground for boosting relations between the two countries' governments and their people, their top diplomats say. Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert F. del Rosario received met with Non-Resident Ambassador of Armenia to the Philippines Raisa Vardanyan Wednesday afternoon at the OSEC Conference Room at the Department of Foreign Affairs in Manila. They discussed plans to further earlier agreements to broaden ties, mainly through the holding of the first political consultations between their foreign ministries this year at a mutually acceptable date. Del Rosario recalled his meeting with Ambassador Vardanyan last June wherein they committed to promote Philippines-Armenia relations in the areas of trade, investments, education, science, and people-to-people ties." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Armenia–Philippines relations to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hariboneagle927 and Staszek Lem that Armenia–Philippines relations are "minor". But, the sources from Philippine Daily Inquirer and News5 cover these minor relations enough to pass Notability. Cunard (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The topic of bilateral relations between these two countries is clearly notable. The sources found by Cunard prove that it satisfies GNG. I also agree with the comments of Staszek Lem above, that these relations are per se encyclopedic. I don't agree with the proposition that the relations are "minor", which I think is based on the false premise of comparing them to other bilateral relations articles, rather than to all our articles generally. They are certainly more important than a lot of our notable sports biography articles. I also think the signing of bilateral agreements is anything but minor. I also doubt that this deletion sorting list (WP:DSBILATERAL) is capable of establishing a consensus that any particular class of article is not inherently notable under WP:IAR or otherwise, because of the intense bullying that anyone who expresses such an opinion is typically subjected to on this deletion sorting list, which so far exceeds what is usual even on this project that some editors altogether refuse to set foot here. Precedents on this list are not necessarily valid. James500 (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not minor even if one article said Del Rosario noted that the meeting was good for the countries since “nothing has moved between us for about 20 years.” He said that for 20 years, trade between the Philippines and Armenia was “miniscule” and that there were no investments. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, per James500 and Cunard. do  ncr  am  02:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No attempt to actually establish notability on your part as per WP:PERX

LibStar (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the above sources. AusLondonder (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability is present in the relations between the two countries.--RioHondo (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. you must explain how it's notable. LibStar (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How about you as the nominator do the necessary searches WP:BEFORE nominating this article? When the topic is on the relations between 2 nations, this should also mean to cover even the history and past linkages between the 2, which is significant and notable as per sources in Google Books Article should then include a historical account of the early Armenian quarter in Manila, the "Manilha Trade" between Manila and Madras facilitated by Armenian merchants from New Julfa, and their role in the British East India Company in the Philippines. Lets not limit bilateral relations to current ones.--RioHondo (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This adds something substantial to the current article beyond diplomat-speak. Current relations might be minor but historical relations might not be the same case. Added some info regarding the historical Armenian trade to the main article.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.